astronomical Support-2013-Shap-100616 ( December 13, 2013)

The establishment registration of the establishment of the root of this case cannot be deemed as a false conspiracy.

In the event that a person asserts that a false conspiracy is null and void, the person who claims the false conspiracy shall be liable to prove it, and in order to establish a false conspiracy, the truth and indication of the declaration of intention shall not coincide with that of the other party,

Daejeon High Court 2014Na10142

Korea

YO

astronomical Support2013 Ghana10616

2015.04.29

2015.06.24

1. The plaintiff's assertion

On April 27, 2007, the Daejeon District Court's OO branch office of the Daejeon District Court (OO branch office of the Daejeon District Court) completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage on the part of the debtor, the mortgagee, and the mortgagee, on March 27, 2007, with respect to the size of 1,908 square meters prior to the O branch office of the O branch office of the O branch office of the O branch office of the Daejeon District Court (O branch office of the O branch office of the O branch office of the O branch office of the O branch office of the O branch office of the O branch office of the O branch office of the O branch office of the O branch office of the O branch office of the O branch office of the O branch office of the O branch office of the O branch office of the O branch office of the O branch office of the Republic of Korea.

2. Determination

Where the Plaintiff claims that his bonds are invalid as a false declaration of conspiracy, the Plaintiff is liable to prove the facts constituting the cause of interference, and to establish a false declaration of conspiracy, the intention and indication of the intention of the declaration of intention are inconsistent and an agreement is required between the other party as to the inconsistency (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da266, Apr. 13, 2012).

In light of the above legal principles, in light of the overall purport of the pleadings in evidence Nos. 2, 7, 11, 13, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, YO borrowed a total of KRW 100 million from the defendant and his husband KimB on May 20, 2002 and May 25, 2005, each of which was claimed by the defendant that the establishment registration of a mortgage was completed to secure the loan obligation after a considerable period of time from the above borrowing date, the above establishment registration of a mortgage should be completed on April 27, 2007, after the considerable period of time from the above borrowing date, and it should be completed with the maximum debt amount of KRW 0,000,000,000,000,000, which is less than the above loan amount, and there is no reason to conclude that KimB obtained a loan from the financial institution around May 20, 2002.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and since the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.